This explains why the average Slashdotter is so smart. They found the best solution to this problem: stay away from women, however beautiful they may be, altogether!
The next time someone gives you crap for living in voluntary solitary confinement in your mom's basement, at least you'll know you're making the smart choice.
A terrible sign of what? Technological development? If I'd call this any kind of sign, I'd pick positive words. Sure it sucks for America not to be the only country that does science anymore, but maybe it's a lesson in humility for seeing this as personal loss of $21B that would otherwise have been invested in your country, instead of welcoming this important piece of research.
No-CD cracks are one thing, (originally) made to enable people to play the games they bought without having to put the cd-rom into the drive.
And sure, the kind people who make them will probably also develop private servers that allow LAN play and don't show ads related to your favorite type of porn, so this may not be as big a problem to me as it might seem.
However, if I'm going to play a game that requires a no-ad crack to protect my privacy or a private server to allow LAN play when I don't have an internet connection (such as at LAN parties in people's garages), you can bet your ass off it won't be a game I paid for, if you know what I mean.
PC games have had ads for a very long time. The first game that comes to mind is World Cup 98, which had ads for Snickers, JVC, Mastercard, Opel, Fujifilm, Gilette, Braun and Adidas (check the screenshots on Gamespot). Something like that doesn't bother me at all, it adds to realism and immersion (it's better than billboards that say Snockers, JCV and Adadis), and I'm fine with publishers trying to make a few extra bucks.
What I'm trying to say is, it's not the ads that I'm worried about, it's the "anonymous" information they're sending back and forth. I trust they won't send any of my "personal" information (name, telephone number, personal e-mails), but where do you draw the line?
If Blizzard is going to implement this, they'll probably do it via Battle.net somehow. And knowing how much money Blizzard is raking in, I wouldn't be surprised if other publishers got the balls to set up restrictive you-must-be-on-line-and-connected-to-us-if-you-want-to-play "services".
How are we supposed to react to something like this?
The only easy answer is "don't buy those games". The sad part is that most major games will probably start using this or similar technologies.
It's not a large-scale study or anything, but it's still worth considering: Mythbusters did a test on this once. They had two people take a driving test (a) while intoxicated (b) while having a discussion on the phone, using a hands-free set, which is perfectly legal.
Both of them failed both tests, although they did a lot better drunk than they did talking on the phone.
You make a good point, except you wouldn't be protecting society by putting people in jail for 6 months if they're caught texting, you'd be bankrupting society because it's so expensive to put someone in jail. Punishingly high fines might do the trick, say a $2.500 fine if you're caught texting behind the wheel.
This should be applied first in the southern states, because a solar panel in a southern state will yield more energy than a solar panel in a northern state (like Minnesota), as opposed to fossil fuels, which yield the same amount of energy regardless of where you burn them.
People do seem to be focusing too much on the problems and not enough on the benefits, which is a healthy point of view when you're talking about scientific developments, but most problems I see people pointing out here are easily solved or circumvented. Freeze/thaw cycles are one, the solution being: build them in the warmer states.
Timothy Brownawell wrote about another problem:
Oh, lovely. So instead of just snow, you'll be driving on a layer of slush/ice on top of a little water. That's about as bad as it can get, except for maybe a flash flood.
Again, this problem is relatively easily solved by making sure the roads are properly drained. Slightly slope the roads to the side so the rain or molten snow drains off into a sewer, and you don't have the slush anymore. This snow problem is also severely reduced by building these roads in California and Florida instead of Alaska and New Hampshire.
copponex wrote:
Yes, if the people who designed this system are absolute morons, they may have forgotten that trucks exist and are heavy.
Trucks do exist and are heavy, and do wear down roads and highways quickly. The thing is, a lot of roads aren't heavily used highways, they're calm streets in suburbs.
As rtaylor wrote:
Most of the streets in neighbourhoods are also very lightly used (hundreds of slow moving cars per day and not tens of thousands).
These quiet streets get just as much sunlight per square meter (substitute by your favorite unit of area) as the big highway a few miles further. No need to change the entire transportation network into a power plant at once, you can keep your heavy trucks on asphalt highways, and keep the solar panels in the suburbs where people drive slowly, and heavy trucks are barely ever seen at all.
The problem is that they've allowed third party developers to access your information, so their database probably isn't the only database that has your information anymore.
Facebook agreed to make changes dealing with [...] accounts of users who die.
FTA:
Facebook has specifically agreed to: [...] Clarify in its privacy policy that it will retain a user's profile after the user dies so friends can post comments and pay tribute.
They didn't say they would protect the privacy of the dead, just that they would change the way they deal with people's profiles after they die.
Not an expert, so this post is almost pure speculation. If you're using this information to do anything important, you're insane.
Structural strength is one problem. Another problem is what would happen if something pierced it. Because of the big difference in pressure, it would fill up with air very quickly, which means losing a lot of buoyancy.
Airships with lighter-than-air gas also lose buoyancy when they're pierced because the gas escapes which reduces volume, but the pressure differences are much smaller so I suppose it wouldn't go as fast.
Also, it's not hard to simply release more buoyant gas from a tank to compensate for the loss. It's probably much harder to vacuum the incoming air out.
Slashdot Mirror
I know some farming operations are rougher than others (factory farmed chickens for example)
Indeed. This was linked to me the other day: Undercover Investigation at Hy-Line Hatchery
This explains why the average Slashdotter is so smart. They found the best solution to this problem: stay away from women, however beautiful they may be, altogether!
The next time someone gives you crap for living in voluntary solitary confinement in your mom's basement, at least you'll know you're making the smart choice.
It may be confusing at first, but people will eventually get by without?
A terrible sign of what? Technological development? If I'd call this any kind of sign, I'd pick positive words. Sure it sucks for America not to be the only country that does science anymore, but maybe it's a lesson in humility for seeing this as personal loss of $21B that would otherwise have been invested in your country, instead of welcoming this important piece of research.
AdBlock Plus, because drinking your worries away is SO 1990s.
What gave you that idea?
No-CD cracks are one thing, (originally) made to enable people to play the games they bought without having to put the cd-rom into the drive.
And sure, the kind people who make them will probably also develop private servers that allow LAN play and don't show ads related to your favorite type of porn, so this may not be as big a problem to me as it might seem.
However, if I'm going to play a game that requires a no-ad crack to protect my privacy or a private server to allow LAN play when I don't have an internet connection (such as at LAN parties in people's garages), you can bet your ass off it won't be a game I paid for, if you know what I mean.
Yarrrrr.
The police have to work a lot harder to track down someone who actually stole your laptop
... but they usually don't.
Having worked in communications for both government and private organizations for ten years, I can tell you there's some interesting stuff out there.
But you can't actually tell us anything specific about the interesting stuff out there without having to kill us, right?
Actually, the most expensive simulator has gravity force feedback.
PC games have had ads for a very long time. The first game that comes to mind is World Cup 98, which had ads for Snickers, JVC, Mastercard, Opel, Fujifilm, Gilette, Braun and Adidas (check the screenshots on Gamespot). Something like that doesn't bother me at all, it adds to realism and immersion (it's better than billboards that say Snockers, JCV and Adadis), and I'm fine with publishers trying to make a few extra bucks.
What I'm trying to say is, it's not the ads that I'm worried about, it's the "anonymous" information they're sending back and forth. I trust they won't send any of my "personal" information (name, telephone number, personal e-mails), but where do you draw the line?
How are we supposed to react to something like this?
The only easy answer is "don't buy those games". The sad part is that most major games will probably start using this or similar technologies.
The same goes for "the West".
The statistics will of course show that fatal crashes are dropping as cell phone use is increasing
The statistics show that fatal crashes are dropping in spite of increasing cell phone use.
Don't compare A to B and conclude a relation between the two without considering the influence of C through Z.
Churning butter, feeding the chickens and pushing a hoop with a stick down a dirt road is your solution to this?
It's not a large-scale study or anything, but it's still worth considering: Mythbusters did a test on this once. They had two people take a driving test (a) while intoxicated (b) while having a discussion on the phone, using a hands-free set, which is perfectly legal.
Both of them failed both tests, although they did a lot better drunk than they did talking on the phone.
You make a good point, except you wouldn't be protecting society by putting people in jail for 6 months if they're caught texting, you'd be bankrupting society because it's so expensive to put someone in jail. Punishingly high fines might do the trick, say a $2.500 fine if you're caught texting behind the wheel.
I believe what eiapoce meant to say was "That is roughly 30 times too many."
This should be applied first in the southern states, because a solar panel in a southern state will yield more energy than a solar panel in a northern state (like Minnesota), as opposed to fossil fuels, which yield the same amount of energy regardless of where you burn them.
People do seem to be focusing too much on the problems and not enough on the benefits, which is a healthy point of view when you're talking about scientific developments, but most problems I see people pointing out here are easily solved or circumvented. Freeze/thaw cycles are one, the solution being: build them in the warmer states.
Timothy Brownawell wrote about another problem:
Oh, lovely. So instead of just snow, you'll be driving on a layer of slush/ice on top of a little water. That's about as bad as it can get, except for maybe a flash flood.
Again, this problem is relatively easily solved by making sure the roads are properly drained. Slightly slope the roads to the side so the rain or molten snow drains off into a sewer, and you don't have the slush anymore. This snow problem is also severely reduced by building these roads in California and Florida instead of Alaska and New Hampshire.
copponex wrote:
Yes, if the people who designed this system are absolute morons, they may have forgotten that trucks exist and are heavy.
Trucks do exist and are heavy, and do wear down roads and highways quickly. The thing is, a lot of roads aren't heavily used highways, they're calm streets in suburbs.
As rtaylor wrote:
Most of the streets in neighbourhoods are also very lightly used (hundreds of slow moving cars per day and not tens of thousands).
These quiet streets get just as much sunlight per square meter (substitute by your favorite unit of area) as the big highway a few miles further. No need to change the entire transportation network into a power plant at once, you can keep your heavy trucks on asphalt highways, and keep the solar panels in the suburbs where people drive slowly, and heavy trucks are barely ever seen at all.
7. No, you didn't win the Nigerian lottery.
No, but they did make people think their information would only be accessible by the friends they selected. False marketing much?
I would argue this is the only thing that could kill Facebook at this point, however unlikely it is.
Yes, but a man can dream...
The problem is that they've allowed third party developers to access your information, so their database probably isn't the only database that has your information anymore.
Facebook agreed to make changes dealing with [...] accounts of users who die.
FTA:
Facebook has specifically agreed to: [...] Clarify in its privacy policy that it will retain a user's profile after the user dies so friends can post comments and pay tribute.
They didn't say they would protect the privacy of the dead, just that they would change the way they deal with people's profiles after they die.
Not an expert, so this post is almost pure speculation. If you're using this information to do anything important, you're insane.
Structural strength is one problem. Another problem is what would happen if something pierced it. Because of the big difference in pressure, it would fill up with air very quickly, which means losing a lot of buoyancy.
Airships with lighter-than-air gas also lose buoyancy when they're pierced because the gas escapes which reduces volume, but the pressure differences are much smaller so I suppose it wouldn't go as fast.
Also, it's not hard to simply release more buoyant gas from a tank to compensate for the loss. It's probably much harder to vacuum the incoming air out.